It delineates out the situation/ condition - but doesn't offer a remedy.
Also - the responses have basically the same views concerning the two "churches" and their interaction with each other.
The two churches seem to simplistically deal with "consumption", ie., basically "foodstuffs" - used for human consumption, and "foodstuffs"- used to make "fuels" to burn to make electricity or power vehicles.
What would your position be - if the "demand" for the foodstuffs used for fuel to burn to make electricity and power vehicles -- was eliminated - because it had been "replaced" - by electricity.
Not sure we understand the question but will give it a go...
First, little if any foodstuffs are used for fuel to burn to make electricity. Most are used for ethanol or biofuel. So, they don't replace electricity, they merely offset growth in consumption of traditional hydrocarbons. Note that "offset growth" does not mean reduce total hydrocarbon consumption. That continues to go up and to the right, irrespective of what America, Europe and the West do.
So, no food burned for electricity (yet trees are being burned for electricity). The food crops are for transport fuel. And remember, fuel/transportation only accounts for about 25-30% of global primary energy use.
A certain portion of transport can be powered by electricity. Short haul, urban, shopping, taking kids to school, etc. For certain applications, an EV won't do. We are not convinced we will ever see long haul trucking by commercial EV. Doomberg has the simplest most rational idea. Hybrids. Take one 80Kw battery from a Tesla, but it into 4 Toyotas, then instead of displacing the gas consumption from one car (the Tesla driver), you are displacing 80% of the gas consumption of four drivers (the Toyotas). 80% X 4 = 3.2 times the gas consumption abated by doing it this way. That's a good start.
Our simple rule, as conservation environmentalists, when it comes to biofuels and biomass:
1) Never grow food crops for anything but humans, or to feed animals to feed humans. No corn, soybeans, sugar, palm oil or other crops for ethanol, biodiesel, etc.
2) All arable land no longer necessary for crop growth should be carefully managed as conservation land. It may need to be used for crop growth in the future. That land should build soil carbon, lie fallow, let nature take its course.
Thanks for this response - because what you said here - I believe, supports my first comment.
I wrote that we could go directly to electricity -- because the electric power supply required to do that has been developed / US Patented / and is available - with the original technology being 124+ years old - as the "receiver" / "resonating tank circuit" being found in every AM and FM radio manufactured since Tesla invented and Patented it in year 1900.
But it won't happen until the public is made aware of the fact that Academia in both Classic Physics and Electrical Engineering are holding the direct electrification up:
--- by not admitting that when Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented his "Electric Generator" (US 511,916 / Jan 2nd. 1894) and then invented and US Patented his "System For Transmission For Electric Energy" (US 645,576 / Mar. 20th. 1900) which included the "resonating tank circuit" and "resonance" - known as the AM or FM Radio.
The 124+ year operation totally invalidates the "verbiage" used in the 1850s Physics stated position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." - because of the following:
Every resonating tank circuit in existence:
--- always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while simultaneously:
--- always "electrically reduces" the input power level "connected to it" to it's
--- "...absolute minimum power value.
The maximum power value is never exceeded - while the input power is always reduced - which I don't believe few if any Physicists are aware of -- because ofo the following:
Academia in Electrical Engineering have been hiding the fact that for 127 years:
--- ever since the discovery of the "electron" in 1897, by British Physicist J. J. Thomson / with it's natural negative magnetic field / and that it can be controlled using different magnetic fields:
--- that their "ancient history only" based "Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory - was totally eviscerated / totally invalidated / by the Laws of Magnetics - which state that":
--- "...two "like" magnetic fields always repel each other...":
--- invalidating Electrical Engineering's position that it is the "positive-charge" moving "positive-to-negative" movement in any electric circuit -that constitutes "electricity" - when the exact opposite is true - that:
--- "...it is "voltage-influenced valence electron movement", moving "negative-to-positive" in an electrical circuit that constitutes "electricity".
These two groups of Academia - for whatever intransigent personal reasons:
--- because there are no honest academic reason that will withstand scrutiny:
--- are mainly responsible for the World's foodstuffs having to be grown to make biofuels - to power vehicle.
If they had been honest in facing the fact that "history, in the form of 'discovery and invention' - had forwarded progress" - they would have changed.
But they "elected to not change" what they were teaching - and so the World was,and still is being taught that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power - thus keeping the Church of Carbon in business - where it could have been eliminated.
Do you think that you might want to change that?
You can - by just writing about the truth - and publishing the real facts.
Great comment on the biofuel madness. I’ll add another thought: biofuels are supposed to be carbon-neutral because in the growth phase of fuel crops (what an absurd term!), they absorb all CO2 they will eventually emit. But to grow biofuel crops, you first have to cut down other crops/ plants/ rainforests, deleting the carbon capture of those plants … cancelling out the intended first-order effect as well.
Some times you don't have to cut down other crops/plants/forest/rainforest. E.g., Brazil plans to concentrate future growth biofuels on "degraded" lands. We're researching that for more detail and may write about it. If that means where they've already cut rainforest for 20 years of cattle grazing then (technically), it would not be cutting down other plants/trees, etc. But, rainforest may have been cleared on that land 20 years ago (or less) for grazing.
Jatropha curcas is a seed-bearing crop that can be grown on degraded lands in Latin America, Africa and Asia. It has been touted as a miracle crop for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and is grown commercially in some volume. It can be grown on degraded lands and is not a food crop. But, its still monoculture, it's not returning land to nature, and it uses water in processing the biodiesel and takes diesel to plant, maintain, harvest and transport.
I know that this is about biofuels, but biodiversity and climate change also intersect with regard to solar and wind (and geothermal) and lithium mining. Traditional ENGOs tend to support those, while grassroots tend to be against them for biodiversity/species reasons.
Yes, "windosolar" (as coined by Substack's wonderful Euro energy writer Irina Slav) and cobalt, nickel, copper, etc. and all the rare earth element mining as well.
If by "grassroots" you mean the more conservation environmental outfits, we wish they'd help corral the "traditional ENGOs".
I find it curious that environmentalists talk about "loss" of water. Where do they propose that it goes? I have come to my own conclusions, but any water used for one thing is available for the next, perhaps after running through the water cycle of evaporation, precipitation, etc. Again, where is that "lost" water supposed to have gone?
One of these days someone will be hailed as a genius for theorizing that, like Mars, Earth is not a closed system, and that with all the energy from the sun hitting the upper reaches of the atmosphere, some O2 ions escape Earth’s bounds. I consider this as essential to the Desiccation Hypothesis.
Literally since I became a teenager in the early '70s I've been convinced that "making things worse" has been the salient subconscious motivation for such pogroms. That's why they generally can't be "reasoned" with. Despite their arguments to the contrary, their loathing for themselves and by extension others is a deeply unconscious yet somehow religious motivation. This is exactly why a young philosopher is making more headway on these issues than we are used to seeing. It's natural and correct because it's always been a philosophical problem with these people. Of course, though a number of us have held these ideas for decades, they are finally getting more traction as the economic bomb eggs shit out by the Chicken Little classes are starting to hatch at scale. It seems that people are finally starting to express their objection to freezing to death in the dark even after they have been abused into feeling like it's what they deserve.
If pogroms wasn't a typo then interesting characterization of this stuff. It it was and you meant "programs", it's a good Freudian-type slip for the malevolent Eco-Malthusians among us.
The economic bomb eggs shit by the Chicken Little classes (+10 on word choice) have hatched and are now laying eggs of their own. See Germany, where the schnitzel being cooked today is being dipped in the batter of those very eggs!
The EU Parliamentary elections we wrote about last summer were a window. German, French, and Italian Charlaticians tried to pretend it would be different in the national elections. It won't. We won't say that energy/environmental policy swung the political momentum more than immigration or other issues, but it most definitely was a factor. As economic conditions are inextricably linked to energy (and in the western world, by definition environmental) policy, immigration makes a convenient hot button divisive issue but both sides of that issue are suffering equally under idiotic energy/environmental policy so that's the constant to us.
The nuclear industry and its supporters should use the alarmist tactics. Just make up the term ‘Green Uranium’, paint the cooling towers green and and say they were made from ‘Sustainable Concrete.’
I'm of the opinion that the words sustainable and renewable should be eliminated from English language dictionaries. They've become so bastardized that they're virtually meaningless, other than attempting to convey a false sense of good will towards humanity.
Alex Epstein's excellent book highlights some flawed thinking underlying these theological movements.
If you start from the premise that earth's state is a fundamental good that mankind can (and has) only perverted, you end up with the "do no harm to mother earth" = "do as little as possible" model of sustainability.
If you start with the premise that earth is here to serve mankind's wish to have a pleasant environment to flourish, you end up with a different model that emphasizes wise stewardship over the long term.
The de-growth model espoused by the Club of Rome has led us down the first path. We are now mired in a confusing mess of self-flagellation and virtue-signaling.
The energy crises taking place in Europe, and most spectacularly in Iran (highlighted in @RobertBryce's recent article) may serve as a timely warning.
De-growth is built in, just not at the pace they would prefer. Demographics are clear. Birth rates don't lie. Earth's population will plummet in the next century. Fewer people, fewer resource extracted/consumed, less CO2 emissions, less arable land needed for food, etc.
👏👏 thank you for another great article. all these schemes….. the original sustainable coal, oil, gas all doing a magnificent job of protecting our environment and making our lives easier.
The problem I see, additionally, to these two churches is choosing one or the other when it helps the cause against the other. Palm oil is also food oil. So this palm oil can be used for bio fuel or food. Either way its a great addition to both sides when pointing fingers and drawing out maps. it’s screwed, false and utterly sickening. We do need a reset but those mofos in place are NOT the reset. They all are a $$ cabal. Twist and turn whichever way for the almighty dollar. Solution, well like most of us we feel like we cannot change anything. I’m definitely not tying myself to a tree nor spitting on Mona Lisa so I read Doomberg and environMENTAL
Not in this post. This one was really re: the ridiculous concept of advancing biofuels as a climate solution while the conference in the other room states clearly that farming is the largest source of biodiversity loss. They don't square.
And nuclear won't be a transport fuel thing for some years, with the exception of container ships hopefully sooner than later.
FWIW, I agree with this post. As you may or may not remember, I do not agree that nuclear power is an answer. Once upon a time someone said "we'll run out of air a long time before we run out of fossil fuels".
Another stellar piece exposing the Twisted Brain Syndrome (TBT) of the climate and pseudo-science saviors (CAP-S). The policies that these “experts” develop fail every simple test of logic (ESTOL). Thank you for your work in bringing these issues to light.
Everyone needs to read about this (RAT).
No, I’m not from any government agency or climate/environmental group, I just enjoy making fun of their love of acronyms (EMFOTLOA).
Nice article, Mental. Silly question, but I ask it anyways. In your estimation, which causes more damage (human + environmental), growing food for fuel or mandating the incorporation of alternative energy? I understand it is a complex question, but Im curious to know your knee jerk response.
I also wonder where in the production of energy does natural gas produce more energy per interaction of H2 and O2 or C and O2 than does the C, H2, and O2 in coal or diesel? I think they still equate (C?) particulates in exhaust with CO2 from combustion.
I would suggest that there must be a better metric than that being used in the black to orange world map (the one in which you point out the national forests).
This is not a criticism of you and your use of them, but rather a big picture observation- that some type of number of native species, or density of same, should be put into play. Complicates things, but is necessary.
As a resident of Alberta, I know the further north I go, the quantity of flora and fauna per square mile drops sharply. I observe that Siberia and the Sahara would be the same. That they are shown as having lesser losses doesn't mean those areas are well preserved.
[Unfortunately for those trying to do business in the areas], we do need to focus our concerns almost solely on so called arable land.
As an aside, it's also tied to something the smarter people have quietly recognized about the ANWL and some Northern Canada and Siberian oil production- and shipping- projects. In those cold climates, oil spills don't break down. In the water the number of oil eating microbes is comparatively tiny. Whereas when Zelensky's men put limpet mines on two Russian oil ships in the Red Sea this month, it's slightly less damaging long term.
We saw that principle help with the warm water US spills (eg Deep Water Horizon), making them less lasting than would otherwise have been,
We had a couple of paragraphs that didn't make it aboard this post about "latitudinal biological diversity", so thanks for including those comments. You nailed it.
This was the only map we could find that had performed some base level of analysis large enough to show the whole world yet leave room for our overlay comments.
Admittedly, the resolution is far too coarse. Can't say I've seen one that integrates flora/fauna counts in addition to intactness of the landscape scale habitats and ecosystems.
A question.
The article is great.
It delineates out the situation/ condition - but doesn't offer a remedy.
Also - the responses have basically the same views concerning the two "churches" and their interaction with each other.
The two churches seem to simplistically deal with "consumption", ie., basically "foodstuffs" - used for human consumption, and "foodstuffs"- used to make "fuels" to burn to make electricity or power vehicles.
What would your position be - if the "demand" for the foodstuffs used for fuel to burn to make electricity and power vehicles -- was eliminated - because it had been "replaced" - by electricity.
Would that change your evaluated position?
Not sure we understand the question but will give it a go...
First, little if any foodstuffs are used for fuel to burn to make electricity. Most are used for ethanol or biofuel. So, they don't replace electricity, they merely offset growth in consumption of traditional hydrocarbons. Note that "offset growth" does not mean reduce total hydrocarbon consumption. That continues to go up and to the right, irrespective of what America, Europe and the West do.
So, no food burned for electricity (yet trees are being burned for electricity). The food crops are for transport fuel. And remember, fuel/transportation only accounts for about 25-30% of global primary energy use.
A certain portion of transport can be powered by electricity. Short haul, urban, shopping, taking kids to school, etc. For certain applications, an EV won't do. We are not convinced we will ever see long haul trucking by commercial EV. Doomberg has the simplest most rational idea. Hybrids. Take one 80Kw battery from a Tesla, but it into 4 Toyotas, then instead of displacing the gas consumption from one car (the Tesla driver), you are displacing 80% of the gas consumption of four drivers (the Toyotas). 80% X 4 = 3.2 times the gas consumption abated by doing it this way. That's a good start.
Our simple rule, as conservation environmentalists, when it comes to biofuels and biomass:
1) Never grow food crops for anything but humans, or to feed animals to feed humans. No corn, soybeans, sugar, palm oil or other crops for ethanol, biodiesel, etc.
2) All arable land no longer necessary for crop growth should be carefully managed as conservation land. It may need to be used for crop growth in the future. That land should build soil carbon, lie fallow, let nature take its course.
Thanks for this response - because what you said here - I believe, supports my first comment.
I wrote that we could go directly to electricity -- because the electric power supply required to do that has been developed / US Patented / and is available - with the original technology being 124+ years old - as the "receiver" / "resonating tank circuit" being found in every AM and FM radio manufactured since Tesla invented and Patented it in year 1900.
But it won't happen until the public is made aware of the fact that Academia in both Classic Physics and Electrical Engineering are holding the direct electrification up:
--- by not admitting that when Nikola Tesla invented and US Patented his "Electric Generator" (US 511,916 / Jan 2nd. 1894) and then invented and US Patented his "System For Transmission For Electric Energy" (US 645,576 / Mar. 20th. 1900) which included the "resonating tank circuit" and "resonance" - known as the AM or FM Radio.
The 124+ year operation totally invalidates the "verbiage" used in the 1850s Physics stated position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power..." - because of the following:
Every resonating tank circuit in existence:
--- always internally develops it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while simultaneously:
--- always "electrically reduces" the input power level "connected to it" to it's
--- "...absolute minimum power value.
The maximum power value is never exceeded - while the input power is always reduced - which I don't believe few if any Physicists are aware of -- because ofo the following:
Academia in Electrical Engineering have been hiding the fact that for 127 years:
--- ever since the discovery of the "electron" in 1897, by British Physicist J. J. Thomson / with it's natural negative magnetic field / and that it can be controlled using different magnetic fields:
--- that their "ancient history only" based "Conventional 'Current-Flow' Theory - was totally eviscerated / totally invalidated / by the Laws of Magnetics - which state that":
--- "...two "like" magnetic fields always repel each other...":
--- invalidating Electrical Engineering's position that it is the "positive-charge" moving "positive-to-negative" movement in any electric circuit -that constitutes "electricity" - when the exact opposite is true - that:
--- "...it is "voltage-influenced valence electron movement", moving "negative-to-positive" in an electrical circuit that constitutes "electricity".
These two groups of Academia - for whatever intransigent personal reasons:
--- because there are no honest academic reason that will withstand scrutiny:
--- are mainly responsible for the World's foodstuffs having to be grown to make biofuels - to power vehicle.
If they had been honest in facing the fact that "history, in the form of 'discovery and invention' - had forwarded progress" - they would have changed.
But they "elected to not change" what they were teaching - and so the World was,and still is being taught that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power - thus keeping the Church of Carbon in business - where it could have been eliminated.
Do you think that you might want to change that?
You can - by just writing about the truth - and publishing the real facts.
Great comment on the biofuel madness. I’ll add another thought: biofuels are supposed to be carbon-neutral because in the growth phase of fuel crops (what an absurd term!), they absorb all CO2 they will eventually emit. But to grow biofuel crops, you first have to cut down other crops/ plants/ rainforests, deleting the carbon capture of those plants … cancelling out the intended first-order effect as well.
Some times you don't have to cut down other crops/plants/forest/rainforest. E.g., Brazil plans to concentrate future growth biofuels on "degraded" lands. We're researching that for more detail and may write about it. If that means where they've already cut rainforest for 20 years of cattle grazing then (technically), it would not be cutting down other plants/trees, etc. But, rainforest may have been cleared on that land 20 years ago (or less) for grazing.
Jatropha curcas is a seed-bearing crop that can be grown on degraded lands in Latin America, Africa and Asia. It has been touted as a miracle crop for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and is grown commercially in some volume. It can be grown on degraded lands and is not a food crop. But, its still monoculture, it's not returning land to nature, and it uses water in processing the biodiesel and takes diesel to plant, maintain, harvest and transport.
There are no free lunches.
I know that this is about biofuels, but biodiversity and climate change also intersect with regard to solar and wind (and geothermal) and lithium mining. Traditional ENGOs tend to support those, while grassroots tend to be against them for biodiversity/species reasons.
Correct, and thank you for the comment.
Yes, "windosolar" (as coined by Substack's wonderful Euro energy writer Irina Slav) and cobalt, nickel, copper, etc. and all the rare earth element mining as well.
If by "grassroots" you mean the more conservation environmental outfits, we wish they'd help corral the "traditional ENGOs".
I find it curious that environmentalists talk about "loss" of water. Where do they propose that it goes? I have come to my own conclusions, but any water used for one thing is available for the next, perhaps after running through the water cycle of evaporation, precipitation, etc. Again, where is that "lost" water supposed to have gone?
Nowhere. Your bottled water has a trace of dinosaur piss in it as does your finest French chardonnays.
Same applies to cooling tower water for power generation. There people have a hard time separating water use and water consumption.
One of these days someone will be hailed as a genius for theorizing that, like Mars, Earth is not a closed system, and that with all the energy from the sun hitting the upper reaches of the atmosphere, some O2 ions escape Earth’s bounds. I consider this as essential to the Desiccation Hypothesis.
Literally since I became a teenager in the early '70s I've been convinced that "making things worse" has been the salient subconscious motivation for such pogroms. That's why they generally can't be "reasoned" with. Despite their arguments to the contrary, their loathing for themselves and by extension others is a deeply unconscious yet somehow religious motivation. This is exactly why a young philosopher is making more headway on these issues than we are used to seeing. It's natural and correct because it's always been a philosophical problem with these people. Of course, though a number of us have held these ideas for decades, they are finally getting more traction as the economic bomb eggs shit out by the Chicken Little classes are starting to hatch at scale. It seems that people are finally starting to express their objection to freezing to death in the dark even after they have been abused into feeling like it's what they deserve.
If pogroms wasn't a typo then interesting characterization of this stuff. It it was and you meant "programs", it's a good Freudian-type slip for the malevolent Eco-Malthusians among us.
The economic bomb eggs shit by the Chicken Little classes (+10 on word choice) have hatched and are now laying eggs of their own. See Germany, where the schnitzel being cooked today is being dipped in the batter of those very eggs!
The EU Parliamentary elections we wrote about last summer were a window. German, French, and Italian Charlaticians tried to pretend it would be different in the national elections. It won't. We won't say that energy/environmental policy swung the political momentum more than immigration or other issues, but it most definitely was a factor. As economic conditions are inextricably linked to energy (and in the western world, by definition environmental) policy, immigration makes a convenient hot button divisive issue but both sides of that issue are suffering equally under idiotic energy/environmental policy so that's the constant to us.
Definitely NOT a Freudian slip. I knew you'd understand.
The nuclear industry and its supporters should use the alarmist tactics. Just make up the term ‘Green Uranium’, paint the cooling towers green and and say they were made from ‘Sustainable Concrete.’
Ha!
I'm of the opinion that the words sustainable and renewable should be eliminated from English language dictionaries. They've become so bastardized that they're virtually meaningless, other than attempting to convey a false sense of good will towards humanity.
Don't look for them to be eliminated from the language.
But look for the teflon coating wearing off both.
Good one!
Alex Epstein's excellent book highlights some flawed thinking underlying these theological movements.
If you start from the premise that earth's state is a fundamental good that mankind can (and has) only perverted, you end up with the "do no harm to mother earth" = "do as little as possible" model of sustainability.
If you start with the premise that earth is here to serve mankind's wish to have a pleasant environment to flourish, you end up with a different model that emphasizes wise stewardship over the long term.
The de-growth model espoused by the Club of Rome has led us down the first path. We are now mired in a confusing mess of self-flagellation and virtue-signaling.
The energy crises taking place in Europe, and most spectacularly in Iran (highlighted in @RobertBryce's recent article) may serve as a timely warning.
We are going to come out of this mess eventually.
De-growth is built in, just not at the pace they would prefer. Demographics are clear. Birth rates don't lie. Earth's population will plummet in the next century. Fewer people, fewer resource extracted/consumed, less CO2 emissions, less arable land needed for food, etc.
👏👏 thank you for another great article. all these schemes….. the original sustainable coal, oil, gas all doing a magnificent job of protecting our environment and making our lives easier.
You bet.
The problem I see, additionally, to these two churches is choosing one or the other when it helps the cause against the other. Palm oil is also food oil. So this palm oil can be used for bio fuel or food. Either way its a great addition to both sides when pointing fingers and drawing out maps. it’s screwed, false and utterly sickening. We do need a reset but those mofos in place are NOT the reset. They all are a $$ cabal. Twist and turn whichever way for the almighty dollar. Solution, well like most of us we feel like we cannot change anything. I’m definitely not tying myself to a tree nor spitting on Mona Lisa so I read Doomberg and environMENTAL
We thank you for that.
If we see a woman tied to a tree, we will yell your name. If it's you, and you'd like us to save you, just yell 'Mental!
;)
I hate to say it, but I kept waiting for your push for nuclear power.
Not in this post. This one was really re: the ridiculous concept of advancing biofuels as a climate solution while the conference in the other room states clearly that farming is the largest source of biodiversity loss. They don't square.
And nuclear won't be a transport fuel thing for some years, with the exception of container ships hopefully sooner than later.
FWIW, I agree with this post. As you may or may not remember, I do not agree that nuclear power is an answer. Once upon a time someone said "we'll run out of air a long time before we run out of fossil fuels".
Another stellar piece exposing the Twisted Brain Syndrome (TBT) of the climate and pseudo-science saviors (CAP-S). The policies that these “experts” develop fail every simple test of logic (ESTOL). Thank you for your work in bringing these issues to light.
Everyone needs to read about this (RAT).
No, I’m not from any government agency or climate/environmental group, I just enjoy making fun of their love of acronyms (EMFOTLOA).
Thanks. Think it was TBS. (?)
But you scored 100% on the rest of 'em. (ESTOL has a nice ring. And highly useful these days!).
Thank you. I had to mess up at least one of them in keeping with the performance of the “experts”!
There's more: https://www.energyjustice.net/files/ethanol/pimentel2003.pdf
thx!
It's strange that the globalists in the UN can't see the big, global picture.
Perhaps they can but they're actually focused on different goals.
Nice article, Mental. Silly question, but I ask it anyways. In your estimation, which causes more damage (human + environmental), growing food for fuel or mandating the incorporation of alternative energy? I understand it is a complex question, but Im curious to know your knee jerk response.
Wishing your team a safe and prosperous new year.
I also wonder where in the production of energy does natural gas produce more energy per interaction of H2 and O2 or C and O2 than does the C, H2, and O2 in coal or diesel? I think they still equate (C?) particulates in exhaust with CO2 from combustion.
Yes.
;)
while in the shower I realized that alt energies and growing food for fuel is the same thing; no need to respond to my silly question. Cheers!
I would suggest that there must be a better metric than that being used in the black to orange world map (the one in which you point out the national forests).
This is not a criticism of you and your use of them, but rather a big picture observation- that some type of number of native species, or density of same, should be put into play. Complicates things, but is necessary.
As a resident of Alberta, I know the further north I go, the quantity of flora and fauna per square mile drops sharply. I observe that Siberia and the Sahara would be the same. That they are shown as having lesser losses doesn't mean those areas are well preserved.
[Unfortunately for those trying to do business in the areas], we do need to focus our concerns almost solely on so called arable land.
As an aside, it's also tied to something the smarter people have quietly recognized about the ANWL and some Northern Canada and Siberian oil production- and shipping- projects. In those cold climates, oil spills don't break down. In the water the number of oil eating microbes is comparatively tiny. Whereas when Zelensky's men put limpet mines on two Russian oil ships in the Red Sea this month, it's slightly less damaging long term.
We saw that principle help with the warm water US spills (eg Deep Water Horizon), making them less lasting than would otherwise have been,
We had a couple of paragraphs that didn't make it aboard this post about "latitudinal biological diversity", so thanks for including those comments. You nailed it.
This was the only map we could find that had performed some base level of analysis large enough to show the whole world yet leave room for our overlay comments.
Admittedly, the resolution is far too coarse. Can't say I've seen one that integrates flora/fauna counts in addition to intactness of the landscape scale habitats and ecosystems.